Paul - As noted, it was possible to refute Ronald’s claim (of ARIN’s purported failure to policy) for this particular request based entirely on public information – that is rarely the case, and why I said it’s generally not possible.
FYI - If you wish to rename the ARIN’s "Internet Number Resource Fraud Reporting” process, please submit your suggestion here - https://www.arin.net/participate/community/acsp/process/ Thanks! /John John Curran President and CEO American Registry for Internet Numbers On 18 Jul 2022, at 9:56 AM, Paul E McNary <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: John you just did discuss the resource holder publicly in question. You stated you reviewed the case in question. Go back and look at your own words. You shared that they had been properly vetted with policy in place at the time, did you not? That is a public statement, is it not? Your Inside the DC Beltway back and forth language is dis-heartening. I think ARIN needs to move to a politically more neutral location, perhaps Kansas City and get outside of the Beltway and it's use of the English language which id evidently different than the Midwest. The Federal Government did that with a major division in the Department of Agriculture to save money. So I think it would be best if ARIN relocated to better utilize member resources(money) it is given in trust. John you are a "master" waffler. I will not use a system with "fraud" in it's label to report non-fraud. The name of the system, I think, needs to change to use as you recommend. ________________________________ From: "John Curran" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> To: "Ronald F. Guilmette" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Cc: "arin-ppml" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Sent: Monday, July 18, 2022 8:44:01 AM Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Reclamation of Number Resources On 18 Jul 2022, at 7:33 AM, Ronald F. Guilmette <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: ... So when you say (paraphrasing) "It is unclear if ARIN could ever provide a public justification of the properness of the issuance..." of either a membership or a number resource... well... you've just proven that it *is* possible, at least in this one rather specific instance, yes? Maybe it could be possible in other instances also (?) It might be possible in other instances where the claim of inappropriate application of policy by ARIN staff is equally specious and can shown such entirely through public references. As I noted earlier, we rather frequently receive reports that allege improper issuance only to find out that that they stem from insufficient understanding of the applicable Internet number resource policy on the part of the submitter. Yes. And in all of those cases it should never be necessary for ARIN to give out anybody's confidential information, right? Because you can just do exactly what you have done in this case, i.e. helpfully explain to the party that raised the issue/question why they simply have, as you put it, an "insufficient understanding of the applicable Internet number resource policy". And wouldn't that be the most helpful, friendly, and polite thing to do in all such cases? We do sometimes can supply similar explanations to the submitter of an Internet number resource fraud report, but that’s rather uncommon since it is quite rare to receive claims that are blatantly faulty in the face of entirely public information. In any case, the disposition of each report is provided in the quarterly findings reports - https://www.arin.net/reference/tools/fraud_report/results/ I suppose that you are correct, John, that in this case the error was all mine in having failed to understand and appreciate that even as recently as 2016 the ARIN membership did not take seriously the possibility of interlopers from outside the region coming into the region to grab whatever was left of ARIN's already dwindling resources. And thus, for my mistake I will say "Mea cupla!", fall on my sword, and do whatever other groveling may be appropriate in this circumstance. ... But I am hoping that you will be so kind as to point me to the place where I may myself review the NRPM as it existed back in 2012. When I highlighted the the adoption of NRPM section 9 was in 2016, I did so via a link to the NRPM change log (which includes all of the versions of the Number Resource Policy Manual since inception) - https://www.arin.net/participate/policy/nrpm/changelog/#nrpm-change-log Thanks, /John John Curran President and CEO American Registry for Internet Numbers _______________________________________________ ARIN-PPML You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List ([email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>). Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml Please contact [email protected] if you experience any issues.
_______________________________________________ ARIN-PPML You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List ([email protected]). Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml Please contact [email protected] if you experience any issues.
